Prediction of conformation of rat galanin in the presence and absence of water with the use of monte Carlo methods and the ECEPP/3 force field
- 21 Downloads
The conformation of the 29-residue rat galanin neuropeptide was studied using the Monte Carlo with energy minimization (MCM) and electrostatically driven Monte Carlo (EDMC) methods. According to a previously elaborated procedure, the polypeptide chain was first treated in a united-residue approximation, in order to enable extensive exploration of the conformational space to be carried out (with the use of MCM), Then the low-energy united-residue conformations were converted to the all-atom representations, and EDMC simulations were carried out for the all-atom polypeptide chains, using the ECEPP/3 force field with hydration included. In order to estimate the effect of environment on galanin conformation, the low-energy conformations obtained as a result of these simulations were taken as starting structures for further EDMC runs that did not include hydration. The lowest-energy conformation obtained in aqueous solution calculations had a nonhelical N-terminal part packed against the nonpolar face of a residual helix that extended from Pro13 toward the C-terminus. One next lowest-energy structure was a nearly-all-helical conformation, but with a markedly higher energy. In contrast, all of the low-energy conformations in the absence of water were all-helical differing only by the extent to which the helix was kinked around Pro13. These results are in qualitative agreement with the available NMR and CD data of galanin in aqueous and nonaqueous solvents.
Key wordsRat galanin conformational energy calculations Monte Carlo methods effect of environment on conformation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- De Loof, H., Nilsson, L., and Rigler, R. (1992).J. Am. Chem. Soc. 114, 4028–4035.Google Scholar
- Land, T., Langel, U., Low, M., Berthold, M., Unden, A., and Bartfai, T. (1991).Int. J. Peptide Protein Res. 38, 267–272.Google Scholar
- Li, Z., and Scheraga, H. A. (1988).J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem.) 179, 333–352.Google Scholar
- Némethy, G., Gibson, K. D., Palmer, K. A., Yoon, C. N., Paterlini, G., Zagari, A., Rumsey, S., and Scheraga, H. A. (1992).J. Phys. Chem. 96, 6472–6484.Google Scholar
- Rekowski, P., Kupryszewski, G., Łubkowski, J., Ołdziej, S., Wiczk, W., and Liwo, A. (1993).Biophs. Chem. (submitted).Google Scholar
- Rigler, R., Wennerberg, A., Cooke, R. M., Elofsson, A., Nilsson, L., Vogel, H., Holley, L. H., Carlquist, M., Langel, U., Bartfai, T., and Campbell, I. D. (1991). InGalanin (Hökfelt, T., and Bartfai, T., eds.) Macmillan, New York, pp. 17–25.Google Scholar
- Scheraga, H. A. (1989).Chemica Scripta 29A, 3–13.Google Scholar
- Späth, H. (1980). Cluster Analysis Algorithms. Halsted Press, New York, pp. 170–194.Google Scholar
- Vila, J., Williams, R. L., Vásquez, M., and Scheraga, H. A. (1991).Proteins: Struct. Func. Genet. 10, 199–218.Google Scholar
- Williams, R. L., Vila, J., Perrot, G., and Scheraga, H. A. (1992).Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. 14, 110–119.Google Scholar